The government's short-sighted on this one... in an attempt to GAIN more money, they will actually LOSE more by discouraging spontaneous beginner outings, the bring-a friend type of fishing, and in turn miss out on the SALES TAX REVENUE on gear purchased....

Also, for someone to imply that not buying this new bogus license puts me in the same category as a poacher, give me a break... I'm not a criminal simply because I dont bend over for whatever ridiculous idea a politician thinks of next...

From it's inception, this was a money-making tactic to plug holes in the state and federal economy... not provide YOU with a better quality of fishing... Someone, somewhere in a goverment office finally realized how much money they were missing out on... Stating that it will help fishing in some way is the sales pitch... *("of course I love you... sure I'll still respect you in the morning...")
I am a squeeky clean, law-abiding angler, who always does what's right... but charging me admission to fish an ocean, and then using my money NO WHERE NEAR the ocean (general fund) is an abuse of power... so here it is: I AM NOT BUYING A LICENSE... how many freedoms can I lose and still respect myself??
If you catch me, write me the damn ticket... every man has his breaking point, and this is mine.... Oh yeah.... when you come to give me a fine, wear your wetsuit and korkers... youre gonna have to earn it........

If a license is required by the feds, then why don't the feds just fund free licensing with all the tax dollars collected by tackle taxes?



I guess I am dreaming

c'mon, pay attention....the illegals will get theirs free... you gotta pay!!!

RI will spend it, and increase the fee, spend it and increase the fee some more.

We all are. It all just gets pissed away on Iraq,Welfare and soon Health Insurance.

Hey, why can't they include fishermen in the stimulus funding?

Well said and I agree 100%.

Hey Larry...I got a wierd question and really do not mean to be sarcastic.

Bigfish Bait Co pays the hook tax to the Feds.
MA now has an avenue so that it can maximize the amount of that tax that comes back to MA Fisheries and not sit in some federal account.

Are you stating we should fail the license and et the feds keep the money that is doing nothing for us today?

Long Island Fishermen vs. the State of New York

Video - Long Island Fishermen vs. the State of New York - WSJ.com

EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. -- Stuart Vorpahl has waged a lonely battle since 1984 against the state of New York over his right to fish. For refusing to obtain a commercial fishing license, he has been arrested at least four times, once on a dock after a police officer seized 490 pounds of fluke and two lobsters from his 40-foot trawler.
Now, others here on Long Island's East End are joining the 69-year-old Mr. Vorpahl's cause. And they are supporting his argument, based on a 313-year-old colonial-era document, called the Dongan Patent, that conferred responsibility for town land and waterways on locally elected trustees.

"I keep telling everyone, 'Your right to go fishing is right here!'" he shouts, holding up a copy of the document in his kitchen cluttered with files and books on the subject. "But the courts don't want to open this can of worms."

All of his cases over the years were dismissed or ended in mistrials, largely without the judges considering the merits of the Dongan Patent. In one instance, the court was unable to form a jury because Mr. Vorpahl is too well-known. His family has lived for centuries pulling striped bass from these waters.

But this time looks different.

Six Long Island towns, including Southampton, Shelter Island and East Hampton, have joined in a lawsuit against the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, charging that it has no authority to require fishing licenses without their consent. At least three other towns may join.

The fracas began on Oct. 1, when New York, in response to new federal policies, required for the first time that recreational anglers have a license to fish in saltwater. The state has required a commercial license since 1984.

Since there are many more recreational than there are commercial fishermen, the growing resistance has the feel of mutiny. Though the new recreational license costs just $10, some participants are hearing echoes of the current national debate over activist government.

"People want some control over their daily lives, including their right to fish," says Eric Shultz, a retired New York City Fire Department patrol officer and a member of Southampton's Board of Trustees. "This whole fee thing is absolutely ridiculous."

The state fishing license was prompted by a federal measure, passed in 2006, to more accurately measure fish populations. It requires recreational fishermen to register so they can be contacted and asked how many fish they catch. That goes into effect next year, unless states first implement their own licenses.

A handful of states, including New York, this year have done that. But only in New York are fishermen fighting the matter in the courts. Most states, including New York, for years have required freshwater-fishing licenses.

With Stuart, it wasn't like he had created a movement or anything, so the judges could just dismiss him as a crank," says Arnold Leo, secretary of the East Hampton Baymen's Association. "But now, you've got all these towns...so this becomes much more complicated."

The towns, like Mr. Vorpahl, are basing their case on the Dongan Patent.

In 1686, the British governor of the royal colony of New York, Thomas Dongan, granted the patent, a kind of town charter, putting responsibility for public land and waterways in several East End towns in the hands of locally elected trustees. The New York state constitution preserved that contract in 1777, amid the War for Independence from Britain. That means, according to the current trustees, the state has no authority to impose regulation on town property, which includes the bottom of town inlets and bays.

While similar patents existed throughout the colonies, the East End patent appears unique in having survived as a basis for government. It has lasted perhaps because many of the same families, called Bonackers for their original homesteads along Accabonac Creek, still live here and because it concerns fishing, their traditional livelihood.

The patent "is implanted on their craniums," says Richard Barons, executive director of the East Hampton Historical Society. "Without the Bonackers, no one would've known of it."

The attorneys for the towns are going through a 337-page document on the subject compiled by Mr. Vorpahl after he holed up for several months during the winter of 1992 in the town library. The research cites numerous local cases won on the strength of the patent, ranging from overriding a state law prohibiting cattle herding on highways, in 1882, to placing eel pots in a local pond without a state fee, in 1952.

While the towns regard the patent as a bulwark against outsiders meddling in their affairs, it paradoxically owes its existence to state, or colonial, intervention.

From the moment settlers first arrived here in the 1640s, the fledgling towns struggled to stay out of the clutches of the royal colony of New York in favor of Connecticut, where they had closer economic, cultural and religious ties. Most of the original settlers to the area came from New England.

Tensions with New York heightened after 1674, when the British drove the Dutch out of the colony and began imposing a more centralized form of government.

But the eastern Long Islanders also realized the need to secure their titles to land under the expanding British administration. That was achieved in the 1686 patent granted by Gov. Dongan. While it empowered local government, it also had the effect of legitimizing British rule on the East End, by making land titles dependent on the royal colony, according to Peter Christoph, an editor of New York colonial-era manuscripts. It also made it easier to collect and increase property taxes.

Still, eastern Long Islanders continued to resist in other ways, presaging the Revolutionary War, not to mention Mr. Vorpahl's current struggle.
More than one judge has asked Mr. Vorpahl, he says, whether he sees himself as a modern-day version of Samuel Mulford, an East Hampton whaler active in town affairs. Nicknamed "Old Fishhook," Mr. Mulford fought for years in the early-18th century against a royal whaling license. He traveled twice to London to protest the measure directly to the king, despite repeated arrests. Mr. Vorpahl notes that the whaling license was repealed only in 1730, five years after Mr. Mulford's death.

Though others have rallied to his cause, Mr. Vorpahl says nothing is a sure thing. A New York state court justice recently postponed a hearing on the matter until Nov. 19, after Sen. Charles Schumer called for the state to delay implementation of the license during the difficult economy. Last month, New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office backed out of defending the state against the suit, citing confusion over how the license is distributed and enforced. On Monday, a state assemblyman introduced legislation to replace the license with a registry program, without a fee, effective next July 1.

With the matter attracting so much attention now from state officials, Mr. Vorpahl remains hopeful for some sort of ruling.

"I was a lone eagle on this," he says, over the crowing of a rooster in his yard. "But I'm finally getting heard."


More

The Dec. 9, 1686, Dongan Patent, granted control over the lands and waters of East Hampton, N.Y., to a locally elected board of trustees.

Now Know Ye, that I, the said Thomas Dongan, … do grant, ratify, release and confirm unto Thomas James, Captain Josiah Hobart, Capt. Thomas Talmadge, Lieut. John Wheeler, Ensign Samuel Mulford, John Mulford, Thomas Chatfield, senior, Jeremiah Conklin, Stephen Hand, Robert Dayton, Mr. Thomas Baker, and Thomas Osborn, … all the aforesaid tracts and necks of lands within the limits and bounds aforesaid, together with all and singular the Houses, Messuages, Tenaments, Buildings, Mills, Mill-dams, Fences, Inclosures, Gardens, Orchards, Fields, Pastures, Woods, Underwoods, Trees, Timber, Fencings, Commons of Pastures, Meadows, marshes, swamps, Plains, Rivers, Rivulets, Waters, Lakes, Ponds, Brooks, Streams, Beaches, Quarries, Mines, Minerals, Creeks, Harbors, Highways, and Easements, Fishing, Hawking, Hunting and Fowling, Silver and Gold Mines Excepted… And that they and their successors, by the name of the Trustees of the Freeholders and commonality of the Town of East Hampton be and shall be forever in future times, persons able and capable in law, to have, perceive, and receive and possess not only all and singular the premises, but other messuages, lands, tenements, privileges, jurisdictions, franchises, hereditaments of whatsoever kind or species, they shall be to them and their successors…

Patrick not to derail this discussion but please don't refer to this as a HOOK TAX. It's NOT and saying this perpetuates the MYTH that people think they can get away with selling a lure without hooks or out of packages and not having to pay excise tax. These guys are breaking the law and are no worse than poachers. It's a excise tax paid on a fishing lure. IRS definition of a fishing lure is an item with or WITHOUT hooks meant to catch a fish or entice a fish to strike it. Contrary to many people's ill thought notions there is no distinction between a lure with or without hooks. IRS says ANYTHING that "embellishes, improves the appearance, operation, or durability" of a fishing lure is subject to excise tax. That means finished lures, plain bodies, kits, hooks, eyes, grommets, weights, swivels, split rings, etc etc IS ALL SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAX.

Woe be the person who gets audited for this as many have found for themselves. And nobody seems to care except the people who legally pay their way. This problem is so pervasive it's disgusting. On my trip to the NY/NJ/CT area a month ago I saw so many illegal lures it was just downright wrong.

Maybe you can lobby for that next...bet you'd see a HUGE increase in funds going to your state if this BS wasn't going on.

they (the gov) won't be happy till we're all locked in our cells(homes) and have to apply for an exit visa. Hey sweetie, remember the day we went outside! those were good times!

You mean maximize that that comes back to MA fisheries then gets appropriated by the Gov to shore up the general fund?

You may not think so but that is what you really meant BTW.

Just a point of debate.

I think that because of that 720 Tax (Dingle Johnson) there should be no saltwater fishing license because poor bastards like me and Salty and others dump PLENTY into the governments coffers for them to MIS-ALLOCATE where ever they see fit!!!:fury:

Don't get me wrong Patrick.....folks, including myself, appreciate all you do.......but there will be occasions when we disagree....respectively! More power to you Patrick but Gawd Dammit I am sick and tired of paying taxes on every friggin' thing in the world!!! Now.....the last bastion of freedom is going to be taxed! :wall:

Larry...I agree one thousand per cent that the whole license issue is just bad news being shoved down our throats. It completely sucks.

My hatred for the license is why I was one of the few in 2006 that actually tried to rally opposition while our friends in the tackle industry split our Lobby and screwed us but good in DC. I fought that fight when the fight was underway and could get very little help. That fight is lost. I don't like it but it is a fact.

Thank God things are getting better with participation and the fights are lasting a bit longer these days.

You see I just can't lay down and let big brother walk alll over me. Despite making ourselves feel good for a nano second, nothing gets accomplished typing away bitchin at thin air. No disrespect to anyone but isn't that just like a pre teen throwing a tantrum. Don't misunderstand me, as you know I can vent with the best of us.

The freedom you say is being taken away is the same freedom wasted when we do not participate in our govern"mental" process. How dare I not participate when people I never met continue to die just so that I hav ethe right to stand up for what I beleive. I guess I would rather fight and loose than just get the %$%$%$%$ beat out of me.

Also, I am pretty sure that this afternoon we got our version of the bill passed in the Senate with no changes and the dedicated fund made another HUGE step forward but I want to read it myself first.

On another note CHOIR was in full force today and it looks like there will be significant cutbacks to the Atlantic Herring moving forward to next week's New England Council Meeting in Newport RI. I thank all for the complements but please give them to others you know that do this. I get more than I deserve and others do not.

I am just asking for a "little" less bitchin. Cut the itching in half and spend half that time writing a letter or making a call. Sell a plug for an active fishing club. Join the fight.

I am only hoe for a few hours as it is off to Hatteras for the United Mobile Sportfishermen Board of Delegates where 33 clubs join to fight the shore access issues.

Steve...up to this very day MA has never received all of the federal funds it could because we do not invest enough in our fisheries and do not have a license. The committee made sure that this legislation was written in the correct way so that we will now receive all we are eligable to receive.

A furthur fact you might be interested is that not once has money from Dingle Johnson or Wallop Rowe been diverted to the general fund. There have been at least three attempts over the past few governors to raid the inland fund but the feds immediately demanded the money back and each attempt was aborted.

Too bad a guy with your brain is continually trying to beat the %$%$%$%$ out of a possible solution rather than participate in crafting that solution.

Yeah Romney tried it last!!:smash:

You have all been hoodwincked!
 

All this talk about federal law "requiring" a state license is just a bunch of crap designed to keep you quiet while the states rape you yet again. Here is what the federal law says about the recreational fishermen's registry:

(g) RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.—
(1) FEDERAL PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish and implement a regionally
based registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the 8 fishery management
regions. The program, which shall not require a fee before January 1, 2011, shall provide
for—
(A) the registration (including identification and contact information) of individuals
who engage in recreational fishing—
(i) in the Exclusive Economic Zone;
(ii) for anadromous species; or
(iii) for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone;
and
(B) if appropriate, the registration (including the ownership, operator, and
identification of the vessel) of vessels used in such fishing.
(2) STATE PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall exempt from registration under the
program recreational fishermen and charter fishing vessels licensed, permitted, or registered
under the laws of a State if the Secretary determines that information from the State program
is suitable for the Secretary’s use or is used to assist in completing marine recreational
fisheries statistical surveys, or evaluating the effects of proposed conservation and
management measures for marine recreational fisheries.

Now someone want to tell me how that federal law reuires the states to license EVERY fisherman in the state, when the federal law only required those fishing in federal waters or beyond or those fishing for striped bass to be "registered"?

You have all been hoodwinked!
 

All this talk about federal law "requiring" a state license is just a bunch of crap designed to keep you quiet while the states rape you yet again. Here is what the federal law says about the recreational fishermen's registry:

(g) RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.—
(1) FEDERAL PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish and implement a regionally
based registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the 8 fishery management
regions. The program, which shall not require a fee before January 1, 2011, shall provide
for—
(A) the registration (including identification and contact information) of individuals
who engage in recreational fishing—
(i) in the Exclusive Economic Zone;
(ii) for anadromous species; or
(iii) for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone;
and
(B) if appropriate, the registration (including the ownership, operator, and
identification of the vessel) of vessels used in such fishing.
(2) STATE PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall exempt from registration under the
program recreational fishermen and charter fishing vessels licensed, permitted, or registered
under the laws of a State if the Secretary determines that information from the State program
is suitable for the Secretary’s use or is used to assist in completing marine recreational
fisheries statistical surveys, or evaluating the effects of proposed conservation and
management measures for marine recreational fisheries.

Now someone want to tell me how that federal law reuires the states to license EVERY fisherman in the state, when the federal law only required those fishing in federal waters or beyond or those fishing for striped bass to be "registered"?

I don't think there was ever mentioned that states were *required* to enact a licensing program. However, I believe states are leveraging section (2) to develop their own registries as a way of "keeping the feds out" and milking more money of their citizens, and are enacting fees to pay for those registries.

The snowball is already rolling and this is going to happen. We can make posts like yours and grumble about something that is now out of our control, or we can send emails, get involved and hope they apply some KY before raping us.

The ball may be rolling in MA, but Carcieri stopped it in its tracks in RI and it looks like the courts may throw the ball off the court in New York. Licensing is also in Trouble in NH, ME and NJ. You guys in MA may be too far out in front of this one.

Not to derail the thread but I have to ask
How can you tell an illegal lure from a legal lure? do they have little stickers on them or something so you know the tax gets paid? :huh: I am really curious.

very interesting, where'd ya find that Mike?

I've wondered about this all along.

the feds should deal with all this registering stuff and do it for free, no fee. that works for me

Hanging on a peg without any name or contact information on it Bruce...it's illegal.

MA has found another way to milk money out of us, of course we're too far out now.

uh oh
 

Batten down the hatches ....the PLUG POLICE

are gonna raid your Man Caves :confused:

anyone caught with illegal plugs will have to attend
the "Good Samaritan" class with Nancy Regan as
Guest speaker where she will give a lecture on Just say NO

It is litterally the wording of the revised Magnesson Stevens act. Google Magnesson Stevens act and you find lots of places where you can read the whole thing.

What do you think the fee will be after january 1st 2011

Feds won't do it for free come 2011...there will be a fee

so simple to set up a free registry website, you then print out a confirm and put it into your wallet. Each confirm has a unique number so that each fisherman is ID'd.
Enforcement, who ever that is, can ask to see your confirm, if you dont have one, there is a fine.
This would be a "green" initiative saving all the paperwork, overhead and mailings, save taxpayer money for registering. this idea would be NEW, it would be CHANGE you could believe in! Efficient! Cost Effective!
Oh well, we know how that goes.....looks like we stuck with the same old Washington

The feds could easily do it for free and just fund it with the revenuse from the Dingel-Johnson taxes. Very little of that tax paid by salt water anglers finds its way into salt water projects anyway.